applied the precepts of Des Cartes to the illustration of theological subjects. Hence, in the year 1656, the Dutch Classes, as they are called, or assemblies of the clergy in certain districts, resolved, that resistance ought to be made, and that this imperious philosophy ought not to be allowed to invade the territories of theology. By this decision the States of Holland were excited, in the same year, sternly to forbid, by a public law, the philosophers from expounding the books of Des Cartes to the youth, or explaining the Scriptures according to the dictates of philosophy. In a convention at Delft, the next year, it was resolved, that no person should be admitted to the sacred office without first solemnly promising that he would neither propagate Cartesian principles, nor deform revealed theology with adventitious ornaments. Similar resolutions were afterwards passed in various places, both in the United Provinces and out of them.8 But, as mankind are always eager after what is forbidden, all these prohibitions could not prevent the Cartesian philosophy from finally obtaining a firm footing in the schools and universities, and from being applied, sometimes preposterously, by great numbers, to the illustration of divine truths. Hence the Dutch became divided into the two parties above named; and the rest of the century was spent amidst their perpetual contentions.

§ 31. John Cocceius, (in German Koch,) a native of Bremen, professor of theology in the university of Leyden, and unquestionably a great man, if he had only been able to regulate and

Cartes; in his works, tom. i. p. 84, &c. [Jac. Brucker's Historia Crit. Philosophia, tom. iv. pt. ii. p. 222, &c. Irenæus Philalethes (Jac. Rhenford,) Kort en opregt Verhaal van de eerste Oorsprong der Broedertwisten, Amsterd. 1708, 8vo. The first attack upon the philosophy of Des Cartes was made by Gisbert Voet, A. D. 1639, in his Disputatio de Atheismo. Samuel Maresius at first defended the cause of Des Cartes against Voet: but afterwards went over to the side of his adversaries. Even Cocceius was at first opposed to Des Cartes, though his friend Heidan persuaded him to treat the name of Des Cartes respectfully in his writings. Peter van Mastricht, John Hornbeck, Andrew Essen, Melchior Leydecker, John Wayen, Gerhard Vries, James Revius, James Trigland, and Frederick Spanheim-manifestly great names—

contended against Des Cartes. For him, there were among the philosophers, Henry Regius, James Golius, Claudius Salmasius, Hadr. Heerebord, &c. and among the theologians, Abraham Heidan, Christopher Wittich, Francis Burmann, John Braun, John Clauberg, Peter Allinga, Balth. Bekher, Stephen Curcellæus, Herm. Alex. Roell, Ruard Andala, and others. Schl.]

Fred. Spanheim, de Novissimis in Belgio Dissidiis; Opp. tom. ii. p. 959, &c. Those who wish it, may also consult the common historians of this century, Arnold, (Kirchen-und Ketzer- historie, vol. ii. book xvii. ch. x. § 1-6.) Weissmann, (Historia Eccles. sæc. xvii. p. 905.) Jaeger, Caroli, and also Walch's Einleitung in die Religionsstreitigkeiten ausser unsrer Kirche, vol. iii.

temper with reason and judgment his erudition, his ingenuity, his reverence for the holy Scriptures, and his piety, which he possessed in an eminent degree, introduced into theology not a little that was novel and unheard of before his times. In the first place, as has been already remarked, he interpreted the whole sacred volume in a manner very different from that of Calvin and all his followers. For he maintained that the entire history of the Old Testament presents a picture of the events that were to take place under the New Testament down to the end of the world; nay, more, that the things which Christ and his apostles did and suffered in this world were emblematic of future events. He moreover taught that the greatest part of the prophecies of the Jewish prophets foretell the fortunes of Christ and of the Christian church, not by means of the persons and things mentioned, but by the very sense of the words themselves. And lastly, many of those passages in the Old Testament, which seem to contain nothing but the praises of Jehovah, or moral precepts and doctrines, he, with wonderful dexterity and ingenuity, converted into sacred enigmas, and predictions of future events. To give support and plausibility to these opinions, he first laid down this law of interpretation, that the language of the Bible must signify, or that it can signify which rule, if adopted by a man of more genius than judgment, may give birth to very strange interpretations. In the next place, he distributed the entire history of the Christian church into seven portions of time, or periods, relying principally on the seven trumpets and seals of the Apocalypse.

§ 32. Theology itself, Cocceius judged, ought to be freed from the trammels of philosophy, and to be expounded only in scriptural phraseology. Hence, perceiving that the sacred writers denominate the method of salvation which God has prescribed, a covenant of God with men, he concluded that there could be no more suitable and pertinent analogy, according to which to adjust and arrange an entire system of theology. But while intent solely on accommodating and applying the principles of human covenants to divine subjects, he incautiously fell into some opinions which it is not easy to approve. For instance, he asserted that the covenant, which God made with the Hebrew nation, through the medium of Moses, did not differ in its nature from the new covenant procured by Jesus Christ. He supposed, that God caused the ten commandments to be pro

mulged by Moses, not as a law which was to be obeyed, but as one form of the covenant of grace. But, when the Hebrews had offended him, by various sins, and especially by the worship of the golden calf, God being moved with just indignation, superadded to that moral law the yoke of the ceremonial law, to serve as a punishment. This yoke was in itself very burdensome, but it became much more painful in consequence of its import. For it continually admonished the Hebrews of their very imperfect, dubious, and anxious state, and was a kind of perpetual memento, that they merited the wrath of God, and that they could not anticipate a full expiation and remission of their sins, till the Messiah should come. Holy men, indeed, under the Old Testament, enjoyed eternal salvation after death; but while they lived, they were far from having that assurance of salvation, which is so comforting to us under the New Testament. For no sins were then actually forgiven, but only suffered to remain unpunished; because Christ had not yet offered up himself as a sacrifice to God, and therefore could not be regarded, before the divine tribunal, as one who has actually assumed our debt, but only as our surety. I omit other opinions of Cocceius. Those who assailed the Cartesian doctrines attacked also these opinions, in a fierce war, which was kept up for many years, with various success. The issue was the same, as in the Cartesian contest. No device, and no force, could prevent the disciples of Cocceius from occupying many professorial chairs, and from propagating the opinions of their master, both orally and in writing, with wonderful celerity, even among the Germans and the Swiss.9

§ 33. Nearly all the other controversies, which disquieted the Dutch churches in this century, arose from an excessive attachment to the Cartesian philosophy as connected with theology. This will appear from those commotions, greater than all others, produced by Roel and Becker. Certain Cartesian divines, at the head of whom was Herman Alexander Roel, a theologian of Franeker, a man of singular acuteness and perspicuity, were supposed, in the year 1686, to attribute too much to reason, in theology. Nearly the whole controversy

The same writers may be consulted here, as were referred to before; for the Cartesian and Cocceian controversies were united in one. To these may be

added, Val. Alberti, Aλoûv kántα, Cartesianismus et Cocceianismus, descripti et refutati. Leips. 1678, 4to.

was embraced in these two questions: I. Whether the divine origin and authority of the sacred books, can be demonstrated by reason alone; or whether the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is necessary, in order to a firm belief on this subject? II. Whether the Holy Scriptures propose any thing to be believed by us, which is contrary to correct and sound reason? The first was affirmed and the second denied, not only by the above-named Roel, but also by John van der Wayen, Gisbert Wessel, Duker, Ruard ab Andala, and others: the contrary was maintained by Ulrick Huber, a jurist of great reputation, Gerhard de Vries, and others.1 A great part of Belgium being now in a flame, the states of Friesland prudently interposed, and enjoined silence and peace on both the contending parties. Those who shall accurately investigate this cause, will, I think, perceive that a great part of it was a strife about words, and that the remainder of it might have been easily settled, if it had been stripped of its ambiguities.

§ 34. A little after this controversy had been hushed in a measure, the same Roel, in the year 1689, made himself thought a dangerous man to sound theology, by adopting some other singular opinions. These caused him to be viewed with no slight suspicion, not only by his colleagues, and particularly by Campeius Vitringa, but also by very many of the Dutch divines. For he denied that the scriptural representations of the generation of the Son of God, are to be understood as denoting any natural generation; and maintained that the death of holy men, and the evils which they suffer in this life, equally with the calamities and death of the wicked, are the penal effects of the first sin; and he advanced some things respecting the divine decrees, original sin, the divine influence. in regard to the sinful acts of men, the satisfaction made by Christ, and other subjects, which, either in reality, or at least in form and phraseology, differed much from the received opinions. The magistrates of Friesland published decrees,

which prevented these disputes from spreading in that province: but the rest of the Dutch, and especially those of the province of Holland, could not be restrained from condemning Roel and his disciples, both privately, and in their public conventions, as corrupters of divine truth. Nor did this resentment die with the excellent man who was the object of it; but even to our times, the Roëlians, though they most solemnly protest their innocence, are thought by many to be infected with concealed heresies.

§ 35. Balthazar Becker, a minister of the Gospel at Amsterdam, from the Cartesian definition of a spirit, the truth of which he held to be unquestionable, took occasion to deny absolutely, all that the Scriptures teach us respecting the works, snares, and power of the prince of darkness and his satellites, and also all the vulgar reports respecting ghosts, spectres, and witchcraft. There is extant a prolix and copious work of his, entitled, The World Bewitched, first published in 1691; in which he perverts and explains away, with no little ingenuity, but with no less audacity, whatever the sacred volume relates, of persons possessed by evil spirits, and of the power of demons; and maintains, that the miserable being,

Batava; Leyden, 1713, 4to. 20 sheets. [Roel maintained, that the title Son of God referred only to the human nature of Christ, and to the supernatural formation or conception of it, as also to his mediatorial office; and consequently, that it afforded no proof of his divinity. Yet in his later writings, he admitted, that Christ was also called the Son of God, on account of his eternal generation by the Father; yet without excluding the before-mentioned ground. In order to prove that the death of believers is a punishment, he maintained, that in justification, only some of the punishments of sin are remitted, and that the complete removal of them does not take place, till after the resurrection. Schl.]

4

[It must not be inferred, from this statement of Dr. Mosheim, that professor Roel was excommunicated, deprived of his office, or even declared a heretic. Some of his opinions were condemned; but not the man. After serving as a chaplain to several noblemen, he was made professor, first of philosophy, and then of theology, at Francker in Friesland, in the year 1686. In the

year 1704, he was removed to the professorship of theology at Utrecht; where he died in office, A. D. 1718, aged 65. The states of Friesland enjoined upon him, in 1691, not to teach or preach his peculiarities of sentiment; they also enjoined upon his opposers, to keep silence on the same subjects. Both obeyed: so that in Friesland there was no more contention. But in the other Dutch provinces no such order was taken by the government and therefore several synods, finding Roel's opinions to exist and to spread, passed orders of condemnation upon them; and decreed, that candidates should be required to renounce them, in order to their receiving license. He was undoubtedly a great man. Hence Mosheim calls him "vir eximius." He was also, in the main, sound in the faith. Yet on some points, he carried his speculations further than the spirit of the times would permit. But, like a good man, when he found his speculations to produce alarm and commotion, at the bidding of the magistrates, he forbore to urge them, and expended his efforts on subjects less offensive. Tr.]